Total posts: 5,766
-->
@Dr.Franklin
oh no that is the ONLY acceptable opinion nowadays
Send the debate challenge, hoe.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There are some that go the "democracy but only people that agree with me should get a vote lul" route, and yes that's pretty gay, but some - take Frankie boy for example but others too - are straightforwardly open in being anti-democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Probably not... let me google romhack...
Nope, not a romhack lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's certainly *a* bar, I guess... so... yeah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That quote seems so much less inspiring when said by someone that has citizenship but lacks a military record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I don't =(
I am still trying a zero-deaths run of Red Faction Guerrilla on max difficulty though, if that counts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Imagine Nuzlocking that game lol
I literally can't, only pokemon game I ever played was Crystal lol.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the so called 2020 election
A conspiracy kook and a pedo apologist? You must have had some really mixed feelings about Pizzagate.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@FLRW
@Benjamin
Democracy good. Dictatorship bad.
It shouldn't be, but apparently this has become a contentious issue over the last few years.
Send the debate challenges, hoes.
Created:
Posted in:
Simply by existing in the USA, u r forced to work.
Not if you have a rich daddy.
But in seriousness, work does need to be done if society is to be maintained at its current comfort level. n8nrgmi comes around to this idea a bit in post 3 so the rest of what I say is directed more generally at addressing the topic itself rather than specifically at him.
It's nice to have shelter, but that requires someone to build it. The people building it rely on other people to produce the raw materials (stone, wood, brick, etc.). Both of those groups rely on other people to transport these raw materials.
If these groups of people were not working we would lack shelter. Survivable, but unpleasant.
It's nice to have ready supplies of food, but that requires someone to maintain the storehouses that we retrieve our food from. The people doing that rely on other people to produce the food in question, fisherman and farmers and so on. Both of those groups rely on other people to transport these raw materials.
If these groups of people were not working we would lack the easy food supply we have now. Survivable, but unpleasant.
It's nice to live in a sanitary environment, but that requires... you see where this is going. Sewer construction and maintenance, pest exterminators, raw materials, etc. Not to mention all the transporting being done up until now needing an infrastructure... Highways, ports, the list goes on.
If these groups were not working... you get the idea. Survivable, but unpleasant.
Living in modern society isn't a case of "do work or die". For all of the above to work requires people to make it work. By working. Working is, however, well... unpleasant. So if we want to avoid the other unpleasantness we as a population require as many people as possible to embrace the unpleasantness of work.
There are classes of people able to live in luxury without doing work. Rich CEOs, investors, televangelists, real estate tycoons, and so on. That is a flaw in the system certainly, and something that should be addressed if possible rather than ignored, but the point is that the flaw is not "work is required".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
What Trump himself brought to the table was the ability to reinvigorate the party's internal machinery and discourse
Does "criticize Trump as a Republican and your political career is over" really count as reinvigorating discourse and not, like, the complete opposite?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
First article on Google. Some excellent research skills you have there genius. It doesn't even talk about his presidential term just references the 80s in general LOL
That... that was his presidential term though...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
It's the reason why when Reagan left office more people had escaped the poverty level in the United States through his supply side economics than in any time throughout American history.
I'm having trouble finding info on this. What was the poverty rate in the country before and after Reagan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Seems utterly silly and pointless for you to be distracted by this kind of thing when you have things like nuclear war which you should be focusing on.
Created:
Posted in:
Biden: D
Trump: F
Obama: C
Bush, W: F
Clinton: C-
Bush, H.W: C
Reagan: D-
Edit: Actually, I am just not going to rate Carter because I know next to nothing about his presidency and don't feel like me searching his name on Google for ten minutes just now was enough to give me a fair picture to judge from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I mean, one one hand I do understand what you're saying. On the other hand what you're saying is wrong, so... there's always that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So I will conclude with a question to Incel-chud, are physical harm and lack of consent the only reasons to condemn underage sex?
Holy shit. I mean, I know it's rude to respond to questions directed at other people but... god damn, does there need to be any other reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
On his TV show, Fox News host Tucker Carlson urged Americans to ask "Why do I hate Putin?" and has questioned why it would be "disloyal" for Americans to side with Russia if war breaks out.
A friend of mine showed me that clip. I remember it started with something like "Biden says that if you don't hate Putin you're committing treason" and I just thought uhhh... no? Pretty sure nobody said that. The martyr complex is unreal in these people.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm trying to think of some good arguments to go against taxing the rich to Eisenhower levels (93%), but it's hard.
There are plenty of "taxes are for poor people" type of ideas out there. If you once held such ideas but no longer do, well changing your mind about something isn't bad. I do it all the time. It does, however, at least mean that you should understand the mindset even if you no longer agree with it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Can you tell me what this absolutely pointless bitching about some politician taking the radical stance of being anti-murder has served?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Seems utterly silly and pointless for you to be distracted by this kind of thing when you have things like nuclear war which you should be focusing on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Seems utterly silly and pointless for you to be distracted by this kind of thing when you have things like nuclear war which you should be focusing on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Seems utterly silly and pointless for you to be distracted by this kind of thing when you have things like nuclear war which you should be focusing on.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Of just one the many problems Wee Krankei has at the moment is the little problem of Trident that she has all of a sudden gone quite on. Well she would considering that a nuclear war may be on the horizon.
Seems utterly silly and pointless for you to be distracted by some politician saying murder is bad when you have things like that which you should be focusing on.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What "more pressing matters" are you referencing, anyway?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
"murder is bad"!You may have something there.
I understand you find it a controversial statement. But anyway, yes, it seems there are no more pressing issues for Stephen than looking through newspaper articles for quotes of people saying things Stephen disagrees with.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So it appears that there aren't more pressing and immediate problems for a first minister of a country to be concerned about when the last Witch murdered in that part of Britain was over some 350 years ago.
Either there are not more pressing issues like you say
OR
There are more pressing issues but taking 10 seconds out of your day to say "murder is bad" (apparently a controversial statement somehow) does nothing to detract from those other issues.
It is one of the two, certainly.
Created:
democracy is the reason why America suffers under bad leadership.
What system would cause the U.S. to no longer suffer under bad leadership?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
The article you showed in post 25 says:
A reporter from the Expose[11] points out that while the world has been distracted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.K. government quietly released a report that confirmed 9 in every 10 deaths from COVID-19 in England were in people who were fully vaccinated.
They have a little citation number [11] there but... don't actually cite anything. Scroll down to the bottom and there is just nothing, like they think their readers are stupid sheep that will just lick up anything they give them (I don't think that, but this shows that they think that). Could you show us the report mentioned above so that we can rest assured in the knowledge that your source isn't pulling a PIDOOMA on us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't agree that it shows the 'truth.
It's a series of paths that show multiple potential thought processes, what part of it was not true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The weird thing is though, that there is actually one example in history that I can think of (literally just one example though so not a great argument) of a trade between two countries being objectively bad for one of those countries, yet you haven't actually mentioned that one yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Home garden is a reasonable addition to homes that have the capability for such
The average person needs over 2.5 acres worth of farmland to produce sufficient food to live, and gardens are significantly less calorie efficient than large farms so each household would need about a 20 acre garden just to scrape by in poverty on that plan, and people in poverty don't generally own 20 acre plots of land.
Legit question... are you related to alec/underdog?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'd have been fine with the leather shirts though.
Those still exist, just more expensive than cotton. Go buy some if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What will the leather shirt makers in Londen do, now that another country has taken their job?
Make shirts out of cotton.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@oromagi
@Dr.Franklin
@badger
On a totally unrelated note, you guys wanna play some Settlers of Catan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The stop trading only hurts, 'because we started trading.
Um... No? I'll use your own example in case you don't trust something I come up with on my own. Britian started importing cotton.
If I live in Britian and I can buy 10 cotton shirts from Atlanta for $10 instead of buying 10 leather shirts from London for $50 that means I have an extra $40 to make my life better with.
In your own example trade made goods cheaper and therefore made people's lives better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
To avoid reliance on other countries.That they can't threaten sanctions,
The fact that you are admitting "other countries not trading with us would hurt us" is basically you admitting "other countries trading with us helps us" so I feel like you already know why trade is generally beneficial and don't need it explained.
If this reasonable assumption of mine is wrong and you do actually need it explained let me know and I will do so.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
A better system should be possible,
What is the better system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
So even if cotton can't be grown, 'other materials might be valid options.And cotton becomes luxury item.
Why though? I am genuinely confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What did people wear before cotton?
Other more expensive non-cotton materials, I assume.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I agree with the idea of scarce resources of certain types, at times, encouraging trade,But it seems a mistake, to tie one's job market to other countries, without a fallback. (IE Cotton Job Loss)
Cotton needs to be imported (i.e. traded for) if you can't grow it which, fun fact, a lot of places can't.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Again, I am not against accountability, division of power or term limits.
They need not be authoritarian or unelected
So... Democracy, then.
Created:
Autocracy and authoritarianism are not synonymous with tyranny. Tyranny is a state that proponents of both egalitarian and authoritarian forms of government generally wish to avoid. There is an obvious reason, however, that authoritarianism and tyranny are correlated, and I think that correlation is more complex than "power corrupts".
Proponents of less democratic forms of government think of rulers like Julius Caesar, Rome's last dictator. Or they think of his adopted son and successor Augustus, Rome's first Emperor. They ignore the inconvenient truths that are Caligula or Nero. Both Caesar and Augustus clearly brought the Roman state down a more authoritarian path and yet both did a lot of good for the people, at least during their lifetimes. And yet that is part of the problem. The fact that no rulers lifetime is infinite, and that includes good rulers.
When the ruler of an autocratic state dies they need to be replaced. If they are one of the minority of autocrats that is a good ruler that does not guarantee that their successor will be. However, the mere fact that they lead an authoritarian regime does by itself guarantee that their successor will have vast power over the state and society as a whole.
I mentioned Rome's first emperor. A good ruler by many accounts, so their centralization of authority may not have seemed like a bad thing. Whether it was good or bad in his own time however, what it objectively did do was establish a precedent. Turning the republic into an empire meant that there then had to be an emperor.
So when the first dies there must be a second, and so we got Tiberius. And the reason Tiberius was allowed to be so bad was because the precedent had been set by the centralization of power by previous rulers. And when the second dies there must be a third, and so we got Caligula. And the reason Caligula was so bad was because the precedent had been set by the centralization of power by previous rulers.
A tyrant in a docracy can be voted out. A tyrant in an autocratic society is more complicated to deal with.
You say that societal divisions between people that disagree with each other only exist because of democracy. If I was feeling charitable I would say that this claim is simply wrong, but instead I am feeling honest and therefore feel obligated to point out that in addition to being wrong this sentiment is also laughable and childish.
Your very first sentence is "_________ doesn't guarantee our leaders have good character". You choose to fill in that blank with the word 'democracy' without acknowledging that this statement is equally true no matter how you fill in the blank. If I was feeling charitable I would say this was short-sighted, but instead I am feeling honest and therefore feel obligated to point out that in addition to being short-sighted this sentiment is absurd and idiotic
Created: